R. v. Eagles

R. v. Eagles

The Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Eagles failed to ensure installation of guardrails at the perimeter (count 1) and failed to ensure an intermediate mid-rail (count 2); Eagles did not establish due diligence on a balance of probabilities because as site supervisor with greatest degree of control he failed to make certain guardrails were installed and to supervise or direct masons to stay out of unprotected work areas; the Crown failed to prove count 3 (platform unsecured) because evidence did not establish planks were liable to movement or that alternate securing failed to provide equivalent safety.

Citation
2009 NSPC 49
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused/defendant: Eric Eagles
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 November 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal (regulatory Prosecution) / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Guilty on counts 1 and 2; acquitted on count 3
Legal Topics
Strict Liability Offences, Due Diligence Defence, Fall Protection and Scaffolding Regulations, Workplace Safety Supervision, Statutory Interpretation
Source Language
English
Occupational Health and Safety Regulatory Law Criminal Law Administrative Law Strict Liability Offences Due Diligence Defence Fall Protection and Scaffolding Regulations Workplace Safety Supervision +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Eric Eagles

Accused/defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal (regulatory Prosecution) / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Eric Eagles failed to ensure compliance with specified provisions of the Fall Protection and Scaffolding Regulations and the Nova Scotia OHSA
  2. 2 Whether the accused established, on a balance of probabilities, a due diligence defence or mistake of fact
  3. 3 Whether Crown must prove knowledge or foreseeability as part of actus reus for the regulatory offences charged

Ratio Decidendi

The Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Eagles failed to ensure installation of guardrails at the perimeter (count 1) and failed to ensure an intermediate mid-rail (count 2); Eagles did not establish due diligence on a balance of probabilities because as site supervisor with greatest degree of control he failed to make certain guardrails were installed and to supervise or direct masons to stay out of unprotected work areas; the Crown failed to prove count 3 (platform unsecured) because evidence did not establish planks were liable to movement or that alternate securing failed to provide equivalent safety.

Court Disposition

Guilty on counts 1 and 2; acquitted on count 3

Orders

  • Convicted on counts 1 and 2 (failure to ensure guardrail at perimeter and failure to ensure intermediate mid-rail in contravention of the Fall Protection and Scaffolding Regulations and ss.17(1), 74(1)(a) of the OHSA); acquitted on count 3 (failure to secure work platform)